Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Leonard Nimoy

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I don't claim to be an expert in art; I can only give you my subjective impression about those paintings/etc.

Unlike science, it's true that art does admit subjective opinion. You can like a work of art not considered valuable and not like someting treasured as excellent.
BUT this subjectivism only goes so far. Any given work of art has an intrinsic objective value that doesn't change depending on whether you like it or not.

Any given work of art has an intrinsic objective value that doesn't change depending on whether you like it or not.

Where does that idea come from?

Star trek V is, objectively, NOT a good movie.

By what standards?

You're not going to change his mind. It is best to agree to disagree. At least he admitted the film's premise wasn't a total waste. He said with some more work on the script and a good effects house, it would be a decent film.

And we told you so many times now that reviewers are only giving their subjective opinion, like any art critic for any form of art, for crying out loud.

Reviewers may give their subjective opinion, but prior to that, they also analyse the objective value of the artwork.

I may not be an expert in art, but if you think an artwork has no objective value you obviously know nothing about art.

Great argument. If you think artwork has any objective value you obviously know nothing about art. See, I can do that, too.

The difference is - art DOES have objective intrinsic value. Rembrant or da Vinci's works are, objectively, more valuable than garbage, JarodRussell.
Therefore, you're wrong.

ConRefit79 wrote:

You're not going to change his mind. It is best to agree to disagree. At least he admitted the film's premise wasn't a total waste. He said with some more work on the script and a good effects house, it would be a decent film.

ConRefit79, JarodRussell is the one who's not going to change his mind, regardless of how unsupportable his position becomes.

Reviewers may give their subjective opinion, but prior to that, they also analyse the objective value of the artwork.

And examples for these objective criteria upon which the objective value can be evaluated are...?

ProtoAvatar wrote:

ConRefit79, JarodRussell is the one who's not going to change his mind, regardless of how unsupportable his position becomes.

Just look into the mirror, and see yourself, dude.

And yes, as always, time to agree to disagree. But you know, since this happens a lot, not only between you and me, but between you and many others, you might start to objectively think about that. Of course, that's just a suggestion.

Reviewers may give their subjective opinion, but prior to that, they also analyse the objective value of the artwork.

And examples for these objective criteria upon which the objective value can be evaluated are...?

I've already mentioned some of them more than once.

ProtoAvatar wrote:

ConRefit79, JarodRussell is the one who's not going to change his mind, regardless of how unsupportable his position becomes.

Just look into the mirror, and see yourself, dude.

And yes, as always, time to agree to disagree. But you know, since this happens a lot, not only between you and me, but between you and many others, you might start to objectively think about that. Of course, that's just a suggestion.

You forget, JarodRussell, I've seen some of your posts.
Reasonable, you are NOT.

Highly unlikely.
You just want to contradict - perhaps because you're annoyed that I called you on your - let's euphemistically call it self-contradiction?

Read my previous posts and learn, as you claim to want.

Seriously, I can't find much.

You said this:

ProtoAvatar wrote:

As for - there are no objective criteria by which to judge a work of art - well, this is absurd. What I find surprising is that such an obviously erroneous argument was even invoked by some in order to save their pet movie. Anything, just to avoid admitting the movie is sub-standard.
Objective criteria is what differentiates the artistic masterpieces from mediocre works - not how you happen to think about them.
For example, Rembrand's work is FAR better than the work of some untalented nobody, despite the fact that someone would like Rembrand's paintings less.
'Contact' is FAR better than 'Lost in space' even if someone would like 'Lost in space' more.

You said the idea that there are no objective criteria is absurd, yet you never gave an example of what such an objective criteria might be.

You never said WHY Rembrandt's work is FAR better. You also never said WHY Contact is FAR better.

You also said that the VFX are objectively garbage because of the wires. Then I answered that the evaluation "wires = garbage" is purely subjective. A statement you didn't reply to.

One of my favorite scenes from the movie is the campfire scene. Now, I realize people cringe at "row, row, row, your boat", but I love that whole scene, and I love it specifically for McCoy's "I liked him better before he died" comment right after the song.

It's just a brilliant moment of interplay between the Big Three and a gem in the movie.

__________________
“I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.” - Spock, The Immunity Syndrome

One of my favorite scenes from the movie is the campfire scene. Now, I realize people cringe at "row, row, row, your boat", but I love that whole scene, and I love it specifically for McCoy's "I liked him better before he died" comment right after the song.

It's just a brilliant moment of interplay between the Big Three and a gem in the movie.

That scene usually is the one I use an example of the TOS crew being more together, more family, than the other crews in TNG, DS9, and Voyager.

Whatever behind the scenes BS over the years, this cast just worked in a way that I think the others never captured.

The wiki page conclusively denied that "Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis" was considered substandard and despised in Rembrant's time and after. The picture was only rejected from a city hall.
Which denies your post.

No it doesn't. The reason it was rejected from the city hall was because it did not correspond to then current ideals and criteria regarding history painting. That's the whole point. It was not appreciated by most at the time. How hard is that for you to understand. The fact that Rembrandt had to resort to cutting it to pieces so that he could sell them should be evidence enough. The fact is the same is true of all of his later work which was not appreciated until much later.

ProtoAvatar wrote:

PS - And you STILL haven't answered me:
But, for all means, do point to Rembrant works that were obvious garbage at the time and now they're considered masterpieces. How many has he made? Over 2600? Find one.

I've answered you before you asked the question. My first example still stands. Besides what are you saying? That all works of art that are now considered masterpieces were always so regarded and immediately recognized as such? Because that's a pretty absurd claim to make.